Creationists Go Round And Round

[Max Mosley 2]

Thank you! That was one heck of a first approximation!

And no, I can't correct you as I am no expert at all. I just don't think both types of "explanations" (sceintific and religious) can be comparable. You summed up very well the differences between the two.

Yeah hopefully it helps people see the difference.

The historic Christian faith is built upon the confidence that this Book is God-breathed. It is infallible. That is, it does not lead to error. It does not lead to wrong conclusions. It does not teach erroneous doctrine. It is also inerrant. That means in the smallest part, each word, there is no error in the original manuscript. And it is authoritative. That means what it says is binding on the lives of all.

Ash you crack me up! Have you even read the long articles that you posted? If you have, why can't you just write the key points yourself? It would be much more helpful to those of us who want to know what you believe. I read the first one but not the second - they are too long. Do you think that just because someone uses long words and writes long articles he is automatically clever?

Can you give me reasons why we should have "confidence that [the Bible] is God-breathed"? MacArthur doesn't bother explaining why he thinks that, but I'm sure you've figured it all out.

And I'd like to add to that that it is trustworthy. The Bible is believable.

Is the Bible believable when it contradicts science? If so, in what sense is it believable? As the author says, even most Christians nowadays don't believe the Bible literally.

The strongest objective support for Biblical inspiration and authority is the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. That's the strongest objective testimony. The greatest witness to the truth of the Bible that ever lived was Jesus Christ. If Jesus said it's true, it's true. That's the greatest support. There can be no more reliable witness to the nature of Scripture than the one who died and rose to be the Savior, Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ rules His church by His Spirit and by His Word. This is the divine authority. He Himself has said so.

This is ridiculous! You are saying that we can prove that the Bible is true because the Bible (and nothing but the Bible) tells us that Jesus told us that the Bible is true? Does this not sound like circular reasoning to you?

I think that there are difficulties in the Bible because we have to close so many gaps. "What do you mean by that?" I mean there are gaps. For example, some things are difficult to us because we don't understand culture. Right? We don't understand the culture in which it was said. Other things, we don't understand the geography. We don't understand the history of the times. We have a terrible language problem. We're trying to figure out what Hebrews meant when they used Hebrew words several thousand years ago. You see, by having to face all these huge gaps, there is difficulty. [/font]

One other thing. Difficulty is always the product of brevity and summary. You know, when you get a whole historical incident reduced to five verses, man, you've got a lot left out. Right? And when there's anything left out in summary or brevity, it's difficult.

Gosh there seem to be an awful lot of difficulties there. Maybe we can't really be sure we are reading the Bible correctly?

One other thing. I'm glad there are some totally insurmountable, absolutely beyond conquest kind of problems, because that means God's ways are higher than man's ways. And it speaks of a divine author.

He even admits that there are problems with interpreting the Bible that are so bad they are impossible to solve!

So I believe that God allowed these difficulties to disprove collusion, to force us to study, and that they are there because there's just difficulty in closing all the gaps, and that they are there because they're the products of brevity and summary.

But some of the Gospel writers admit that they were "colluding" - eg Luke starts by says he was using other people as sources for his Gospel. It is generally accepted by Bible scholars that the Gospels built on earlier accounts. Same with Paul's writings - he never met Jesus so he relied on other people's accounts - even though his writings are the only ones written by a definite contemporary of Jesus. Also MacArthur is being dishonest here - brevity and summary cause some of the problems but he forgets to mention all the "insurmountable [...] terrible language problems" and the fact that we "don't understand" the culture, history or geography of the Bible.

MacArthur says we should "study" in order to better understand the true meaning of the Bible. I agree. But humanity has learned that some parts of the Bible are just not meant to be taken literally. Even MacArthur understands this because he says:

Now, let me show you another [difficulty] that [critics] bring up. Joshua 10, the battle of Gibeon. Remember this one? And this is where they criticize the Scripture as being unscientific. The Lord won the battle, verse 10 says. But verse 12, "Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said, in the sight of Israel, 'Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Aijalon.' And the sun stood still and the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven and hastened not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before or after it."

Now, you see, the people say, "Oh, isn't that funny? You see, they had the idea that the sun went around the earth. You see, they were erroneous scientific information here. They thought the sun was going around the earth. Oh, isn't that terrific? 'Sun, stand still.' Technically, he should've said, 'Earth, stop revolving,' if he was a scientist."

But, friends, the Bible is written from the human perspective. It is written in not scientific language, but human language. You get up in the morning, you throw your curtain up and you look out and you say, "Oh, what a lovely earth revolving." No, that is a sunrise. You say, "Oh, that isn't very scientific." Of course it isn't. You're looking at it from the human viewpoint. In the evening, when you look out to the west and you see above the layer of ground the...the layer of red, and you say, "What a lovely earth revolving." No, it's a sunset.

We talk about the four corners of the earth. We don't believe it's square. We talk about the fact that the North Pole is on the top, and we say Australia is down under. And the old scientists used to laugh when somebody said the earth was round, because they said, "Isn't that stupid, to imagine men going around hanging like some sort of suspended creatures by their feet?" You see, they couldn't think those thoughts.

When the Bible gets into scientific areas, it speaks from the human viewpoint. It is not intended to be a textbook on science. It is just as accurate for Joshua to say what he said as it would be for you to say that it's a lovely sunrise, because in his view that's exactly what happened. The sun stayed right where it was. And that's the simplest way to describe it. And we still do it.

So you see, Ash, even MacArthur admits that the Bible is not always meant to be read literally! Some of the Bible is just "the simplest way to describe" a more complicated reality. This is a really important point.

Well I've mentioned MacArthur's comments about how hard it is to interpret the Bible due to the textual "difficulties" (he calls this the 3rd point that critics make) and I'll quickly finish by talking about the other 2 things critics say. The first is the idea that the Bible itself says that it is not to be taken literally. Well I've never really thought about that before so perhaps MacArthur is right on that count. However if you look at parables like the one about working on the sabbath, you can see Jesus commanded us to do as we thought best, not to slavishly follow rules laid out in a book. In the third chapter of Mark and the sixth chapter of Luke, Jesus says "The law was made for man, not man for the law, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath".

MacArthur says the Bible has few problems with transmission because the Dead Sea Scrolls show the Old Testament remained unchanged for a long time. That is true, but unfortunately for him, it is not the case with the New Testament. There are huge problems with the transmission in that case, and MacArthur chooses to ignore them. A good way to find out about them (which you really should do but probably won't) is to listen to an interview where Bart Ehrman explains it to you. Ehrman is head of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and was educated at Princeton Theological Seminary. There are more discrepancies between all the copies of the Bible than there are words in the New testament.

[Max Mosley 2]

Hey Murray, as always an enjoyable reply!

Hey! You missed off the most enjoyable bit.

I'm fully aware of what epistemology is, and the arguments of truth (see Plato's "cave" story - it's very interesting), since I have spent an entire module this year dedicated to philosophy. Science is NOT an account of how things happened - but it's an account of how people THINK things happened - it would be very foolish to claim absolute truth, since the only rational answer to any question is simply that we do not know. As my lecturer said - there is no right. There are just different levels of wrong. Scientific answers are just (most often) less wrong than, for example, theory X, or theory Y. But you can't discount the fact that it may be totally wrong, and religion could be totally right, or vice-versa, or neither could be right, or both could be wrong. We simply are not in a position to say what is absolute right, and what is absolute wrong.

The bit in bold is exactly what Andres and I are saying. Scientific answers are most often less wrong (ie better) than other explanations for phenomena in the natural world. Hope you enjoyed philosophy but I don't think you should come away with the view that any opinion is equally sensible. After all the same argument applies to everything you said. You can't discount the possibility that you are a complete idiot. I don't think that would be a sensible view though.

[pumpdoc 2]

My eyes hurt and I didn't even read the cut and paste.

[Null 0]

The bit in bold is exactly what Andres and I are saying. Scientific answers are most often less wrong (ie better) than other explanations for phenomena in the natural world. Hope you enjoyed philosophy but I don't think you should come away with the view that any opinion is equally sensible. After all the same argument applies to everything you said. You can't discount the possibility that you are a complete idiot. I don't think that would be a sensible view though.

but it's entirely possible!

[Rainmaster 7]

My eyes hurt and I didn't even read the cut and paste.

Me neither, but if I ever need a nap I might.

[AutoRacer5 0]

God said to Moses...thou shalt not kill. God drowns the Egyptian army.

Hypocrite.

He said that YOU shouldn't kill. He didn't say that HE shouldn't kill.

L2 Read.

[Ash1 0]

• One can choose to nap forever, but will be difficult, maybe impossible, with an eternal furnace up their a--. Sleep now, ignorance is bliss.
  
• It's true that my posts were long .... but well worth the read. No one is forced to read but read of their own free will. It was painful and time-consuming to have posted what i posted, but you're worth it!
  
• We have to come to the conclusion that it was not God responsible for throat cancer or your medical condition. But in all things give thanks to Him for the gift of salvation and eternal life. I know its a big pill to swallow, but look at the hole in your throat and know that it is only temporary.
  
• What do we have here? An apostate? You coming from a christian background. I won't call you down right stupid. Maybe poor upbringing. I see you have a problem reading. Tip of the day: Read articles in their entirety
  

Bye now. It was an absolute pleasure posting to this thread. I want to thank the person who started this post, for without you my posting would not have been possible.

[pumpdoc 2]

Bloviation to the extreme.

[Max Mosley 2]

Bloviation to the extreme.

That made me laugh so much! You're not a man for long-winded discussions, Bruce. You have far too much sense. Anyway, it seems the fun and games are over as Ash can't speak for himself.

[Rainmaster 7]

• One can choose to nap forever, but will be difficult, maybe impossible, with an eternal furnace up their a--. Sleep now, ignorance is bliss.
  
• It's true that my posts were long .... but well worth the read. No one is forced to read but read of their own free will. It was painful and time-consuming to have posted what i posted, but you're worth it!
  
• We have to come to the conclusion that it was not God responsible for throat cancer or your medical condition. But in all things give thanks to Him for the gift of salvation and eternal life. I know its a big pill to swallow, but look at the hole in your throat and know that it is only temporary.
  
• What do we have here? An apostate? You coming from a christian background. I won't call you down right stupid. Maybe poor upbringing. I see you have a problem reading. Tip of the day: Read articles in their entirety
  

Bye now. It was an absolute pleasure posting to this thread. I want to thank the person who started this post, for without you my posting would not have been possible.

So let me get this right, I don't read some copy & paste job for ten minutes and that makes me a bad person??? Sorry I don't buy that one. Suggesting I'm going to burn in hell isn't the best way to sway me! Faith based on fear is just fear. The fact you just endlessly quote people suggests a lack of understanding and an inability to formulate your own interpretations and opinions - why don't you just type what you think in your own words - then your less likely to get negative responses even if your posts are incredibly long (see Quiet One). I'm not sure what I'd gain from your post anyway, I think I'm already a pretty good person, at least I'm sure I have the basics covered and I'm quite generous with my time and patience with people who are worth it. You need to chillout a little when it comes to this religion thing, just because someone doesn't conform to your views of God and such, does not make them inferior to you in any way. Instead of trying to force your views on others in the way you have, just accept that they disagree, even if (you think) you know your right.

Now, hopefully that can be the last post I make in this thread...

[pabloh20 1]

So let me get this right, I don't read some copy & paste job for ten minutes and that makes me a bad person??? Sorry I don't buy that one. Suggesting I'm going to burn in hell isn't the best way to sway me! Faith based on fear is just fear. The fact you just endlessly quote people suggests a lack of understanding and an inability to formulate your own interpretations and opinions - why don't you just type what you think in your own words - then your less likely to get negative responses even if your posts are incredibly long (see Quiet One). I'm not sure what I'd gain from your post anyway, I think I'm already a pretty good person, at least I'm sure I have the basics covered and I'm quite generous with my time and patience with people who are worth it. You need to chillout a little when it comes to this religion thing, just because someone doesn't conform to your views of God and such, does not make them inferior to you in any way. Instead of trying to force your views on others in the way you have, just accept that they disagree, even if (you think) you know your right.

Now, hopefully that can be the last post I make in this thread...

Why limit it to just this thread??

[Medilloni 6]

Bloviation to the extreme.

Gold

[freaky2 1]

Why limit it to just this thread??

Now, you're really back in full powers XD

[YHR 0]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

I am amazed at the faith placed in human science.

Now I must get back to doing my part ,steering the planet to it'ultimate demise.

I feel so guilty I want to hug a tree.

[spitfire 0]

Here's the thing, and I say this without much inclination to engage in any long argument or cut/paste debate. I also say it as someone who has worked in geosciences for more than 25 years and who has been a part time student of theology off and on for many of those years.

All knowledge is based on faith!

I don't mean religious faith necessarily, but faith in our senses, our observations, our recollections, our interpretations, etc. Faith in our teachers, parents, family and "experts". Religious faith may often be part of this (even for the non religious) but it is not the only faith and without faith there is no knowing. At some point things you have previously taken on faith you begin to see as thing you know. Thus comes knowledge.

I also understand that I do not know much at all. How can I say this.....well people whom I trust, people whom I have faith in, have told me so often enough that I have come to believe it is something that I know. In the grand sceme of things...... I don't know that much, kinda funny me thinks!

You all probably don't know that much either.

cheers mates, I think I will go have a scotch now, single malt, 15 years old, I know I like that!

nuff said

[pumpdoc 2]

That made me laugh so much! You're not a man for long-winded discussions, Bruce. You have far too much sense. Anyway, it seems the fun and games are over as Ash can't speak for himself.

No, long winded discussions are ment for wooing the female back to the lair..................

[pabloh20 1]

No, long winded discussions are ment for wooing the female back to the lair..................

Eh?????? How long does it take you to say 'brace yourself' ?

[Rainmaster 7]

Why limit it to just this thread??

Here's the thing, and I say this without much inclination to engage in any long argument or cut/paste debate. I also say it as someone who has worked in geosciences for more than 25 years and who has been a part time student of theology off and on for many of those years.

All knowledge is based on faith!

I don't mean religious faith necessarily, but faith in our senses, our observations, our recollections, our interpretations, etc. Faith in our teachers, parents, family and "experts". Religious faith may often be part of this (even for the non religious) but it is not the only faith and without faith there is no knowing. At some point things you have previously taken on faith you begin to see as thing you know. Thus comes knowledge.

I also understand that I do not know much at all. How can I say this.....well people whom I trust, people whom I have faith in, have told me so often enough that I have come to believe it is something that I know. In the grand sceme of things...... I don't know that much, kinda funny me thinks!

You all probably don't know that much either.

cheers mates, I think I will go have a scotch now, single malt, 15 years old, I know I like that!

nuff said

Nice post there!

[maure 1]

Here's the thing, and I say this without much inclination to engage in any long argument or cut/paste debate. I also say it as someone who has worked in geosciences for more than 25 years and who has been a part time student of theology off and on for many of those years.

All knowledge is based on faith!

I don't mean religious faith necessarily, but faith in our senses, our observations, our recollections, our interpretations, etc. Faith in our teachers, parents, family and "experts". Religious faith may often be part of this (even for the non religious) but it is not the only faith and without faith there is no knowing. At some point things you have previously taken on faith you begin to see as thing you know. Thus comes knowledge.

I also understand that I do not know much at all. How can I say this.....well people whom I trust, people whom I have faith in, have told me so often enough that I have come to believe it is something that I know. In the grand sceme of things...... I don't know that much, kinda funny me thinks!

You all probably don't know that much either.

cheers mates, I think I will go have a scotch now, single malt, 15 years old, I know I like that!

nuff said

Knowledge is not based on faith. If I conduct an experiment and the results yield a certain insight, you can then follow the experiment's methodology and confirm/dismiss the results. You can also challenge the methodology itself. From the speed of light to the size of the planet to whatever you want in the sciences, knowledge is not based on faith. Far from it.

A different issue is that people take _on_faith_ scientific knowledge. There are too many examples. The anti-smoking zealots, I have forgotten how many fantasy oncologists I've come across. Or the environmentalist, their mouth full of "climate change" but not even knowing the difference between a cumulonimbus and a cirrocumulus. Heck, even the earth being round is faith for most people... could you construct an experiment that confirms the shape of the Earth? No? There you have it.

Anyway, as long as we don't forget that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, no problem. Let the creationists worry about their own sht.

[monza gorilla 1]

Nicely put.

[spitfire 0]

"If I conduct an experiment and the results yield a certain insight, you can then follow the experiment's methodology and confirm/dismiss the results. You can also challenge the methodology itself. From the speed of light to the size of the planet to whatever you want in the sciences, knowledge is not based on faith. Far from it."

Still.... any conclusions yo uare drawing rely on your faith in your observations, faith in your instruments faith in the scientific method of repeatability faith in your ability to reason etc. For instance for centuries the observable fact was that the sun rose and set. People had faith in their observation that the sun moved.

At the coer everything begins with faith, then we see things repeated and we test things and we draw conclusions we call facts etc..

[Max Mosley 2]

Here's the thing, and I say this without much inclination to engage in any long argument or cut/paste debate. I also say it as someone who has worked in geosciences for more than 25 years and who has been a part time student of theology off and on for many of those years.

All knowledge is based on faith!

I don't mean religious faith necessarily, but faith in our senses, our observations, our recollections, our interpretations, etc. Faith in our teachers, parents, family and "experts". Religious faith may often be part of this (even for the non religious) but it is not the only faith and without faith there is no knowing. At some point things you have previously taken on faith you begin to see as thing you know. Thus comes knowledge.

I also understand that I do not know much at all. How can I say this.....well people whom I trust, people whom I have faith in, have told me so often enough that I have come to believe it is something that I know. In the grand sceme of things...... I don't know that much, kinda funny me thinks!

You all probably don't know that much either.

cheers mates, I think I will go have a scotch now, single malt, 15 years old, I know I like that!

nuff said

I actually think this is a good post. It is true that we can't really prove anything and so we do make a free choice to believe our senses. In particular, it is impossible to give logical arguments that strongly support the trust we place in our senses, or inductive reasoning. But what alternative can you suggest? There is no plausible alternative to trusting your senses most of the time (God is a special case that I'll discuss below), so this is really a moot issue in every day life. If you accept normal human "logic" and senses, then science is not faith. But it is true that there is a deeper choice that has to be made as to whether to trust our logic and senses.

When talking about Christianity I was careful to say that it's quite reasonable to choose to believe in God, as long as that belief doesn't conflict with your conscience or with as much of the sensory evidence we have amassed as the creationist position does. I think it is reasonable to believe, because like you say, all our beliefs are in fact choices that enable us to have a full life. Believing in God might help some people do that, so it might be similar to trusting our senses. Though, of course, it is much more debatable than the latter case, where we really have no choice at all, and hence religious faith is still very different to the choice to believe in our own eyes.

But what is not reasonable is to trust in a book literally as the creationists do. There can be no reason to trust a book, especially one with as many flaws and "difficulties" as the Bible, over and above your God-given (if He exists) conscience. Personally I think God will think far more highly of thoughtful atheists like Andres who live by their own (God-given) consciences, than ignorant Christians who obey some Bible-bashing preacher rather than their own sense of right and wrong.

I doubt very much that you disagree with any of that, but as a Christian you neglected to point that out to your more ignorant brethren. Frankly , although you mean well, I think your behaviour is the real problem with Christianity. There are lots of intelligent Christians around. But you don't educate the masses, who are unbelievably ignorant, and dangerous. Look at all the idiots in the States who vote for Bush simply because he's their kind of Christian, and because he'll send 100,000 Christian soldiers to convert the Arabs. Or all the idiots in Africa who are misled about AIDS by their preachers (and even the Pope himself).

Christianity is anti-educational. Just go talk to any creationist and see how dumb they really are. It's disgraceful that the Church doesn't do a better job of educating its followers. But we all know the reason why they don't.

Spitfire: if you had a vision from God where He told you to kill your partner/children/parents, would you? I'm just curious how you think about Christianity and the nature of faith as you see it.

No, long winded discussions are ment for wooing the female back to the lair..................

Yup. They do have a fetish for lengthy things...........

[cavallino 2]

"If I conduct an experiment and the results yield a certain insight, you can then follow the experiment's methodology and confirm/dismiss the results. You can also challenge the methodology itself. From the speed of light to the size of the planet to whatever you want in the sciences, knowledge is not based on faith. Far from it."

Still.... any conclusions yo uare drawing rely on your faith in your observations, faith in your instruments faith in the scientific method of repeatability faith in your ability to reason etc. For instance for centuries the observable fact was that the sun rose and set. People had faith in their observation that the sun moved.

At the coer everything begins with faith, then we see things repeated and we test things and we draw conclusions we call facts etc..

You're confusing axioms with faith. Axioms aren't a matter of choice. We don't have 'faith' in our observations, they are all we have. That's what encompasses all our ways of knowing about the world and being able to interact with it. Which is why I have a little time for people who suggest alternative ways of 'observing', but very little for people who tell you to disbelieve what you observe. Until that's all we have, that's all there is. Nothing else exists, what cannot be observed and cannot affect us doesn't exist. That's not faith. Faith is blind. Blind faith is an oxymoron. It's funny how people who criticize science entrust their lives every single day nay every moment to it, and yet depend very little on their faith. Why do you drive a car believing that the brakes will work? Fly in a metal cylinder imagining that the crazy laws of physics will keep it floating on thin air? When did you ever put that much 'faith' in faith? Your derisive fatalism doesn't sit well with how you live your life does it?

If everyone had faith that the sun moved, we'd be none the wiser now. So someone didn't have that faith.

Sure if you take science on faith, that's your problem. Part of the problem is that most people don't know how easy it is to understand basic science for yourself with simple experiments and no maths - finding that the earth is spherical for example.

[spitfire 0]

You're confusing axioms with faith. Axioms aren't a matter of choice. We don't have 'faith' in our observations, they are all we have. That's what encompasses all our ways of knowing about the world and being able to interact with it. Which is why I have a little time for people who suggest alternative ways of 'observing', but very little for people who tell you to disbelieve what you observe. Until that's all we have, that's all there is. Nothing else exists, what cannot be observed and cannot affect us doesn't exist. That's not faith. Faith is blind. Blind faith is an oxymoron. It's funny how people who criticize science entrust their lives every single day nay every moment to it, and yet depend very little on their faith. Why do you drive a car believing that the brakes will work? Fly in a metal cylinder imagining that the crazy laws of physics will keep it floating on thin air? When did you ever put that much 'faith' in faith? Your derisive fatalism doesn't sit well with how you live your life does it?

If everyone had faith that the sun moved, we'd be none the wiser now. So someone didn't have that faith.

Sure if you take science on faith, that's your problem. Part of the problem is that most people don't know how easy it is to understand basic science for yourself with simple experiments and no maths - finding that the earth is spherical for example.

I get your point Cav, but initially we have nothing to go on and initially we begin and learn only by taking steps that require faith. This is not a matter of religious faith. I don't have faith that my brakes will work. I fix em myself

[monza gorilla 1]

If that was my car, I'd be worried as well.